It simply wasnt needed IMO, the drama scene's we got in the movie were minimal and didnt need any super 'drama' director to pull them off, a competent action director would have done just as well.

Now, I'm not laying any blame on Gavin Hood here, because I know he wanted to make a totally different movie and would have if given the chance, but seeing the script, why didnt they just get a competent action movie director with a couple of hits under his belt?

Someone like Len Wiseman would have done the drama moments well enough and would have excelled at the action scene's which Hood, in all fairness didnt. Same with the special effects, I think many of the poor one's come from Hood's inexperience with them compounded by the fact that he didnt have enough time to get them right.

So honestly, was a drama director needed?

__________________

2017 movie ratings out of 10:

1)War For The Planet Of The Apes-9.5(2)Logan-9.5(3)Baby Driver-9.5(4)Wonder Woman-9(5)Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2-9(6)Spider-Man: Homecoming-8(7)John Wick 2-8(8)Split-8(9)Kong: Skull Island-7.5(10)Alien Covenant-7(11)Ghost In The Shell-7(12)POTC: Salazar's Revenge-7(13)Transformers: The Last Knight-4

I think they wanted to hire a name that would make fans think the movie will be heavy on character and drama unlike X3. And it worked to a degree, I remember a lot of people before the film was released thought he would be the new Singer and bring some depth back to the franchise.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren Ellis

Cyclops is the best superhero in the world. He is, as far as I'm concerned, the Batman. He's been in intensive training since his early teenage years to lead the first-ever mutant rescue and security team. This is a guy who gets up every morning asking himself how he can be better.

I'd put my money on Hugh Jackman and his team wanting a smaller, more dramatic film and the studio wanting something wiith more action and explosions (and mutant cameos). Hugh got his choice of director but the director wasn't given room to do what he does best. I think they were looking for something better than "a competent action movie director".

One of the problems with the script was the WGA strike. In the last few weeks before the start of the strike, there were a lot of productions chasing a limited number of screenwriters in order to get rewrites done before the start of the strike and this was one of them. I think the strike was still running when filming started.

I read Hugh wanted Hood to direct after seeing his work in Tsotsi which was a dark, gritty character drama (amazing film, btw), and he had some great ideas for the film.

According to the DVD extras, Hood wanted the entire film to look like those opening war sequences.

I haven't watched the blu-ray with the full commentary track yet, but just from the extra I watched and the commentary from mind-wipe scene, he's sounds a very character-driven director, which I think would have worked so much better without all the studio interference.

Bryan Singer isn't much of an action movie director either, but he was great with the characterization in the first two X-Men movies, I think we would gotten a continuation of that if the studio had let him make the movie the way he saw it (and, as Celestial pointed out, the writer's strike didn't help either).

__________________”We live in times when hate and fear seem stronger. We rise and fall, and light from dying embers: remembrances that hope and love last longer. And love is love is love is love is love is love is love cannot be killed or swept aside."

Too much action to be an artsy film...too much artsyness to be an action film...too much goofiness and nonsense to be a good film...

If it really was "all the studio's fault" then I think if he could of made the entire film look like those opening credits (which I loved btw)...then I think we could of gotten a pretty good movie...but in the end...it was Hood's fault for making Wolvie so soft...which was one of the bigger problems that he could of changed easy...!

^Actually, again, I think that was the studio and Hugh more than Hood, they wanted the movie to appeal to younger people so they could make money off the merchandise, if Hood had his way i think we would have gotten a brutal Wolverine.

__________________

2017 movie ratings out of 10:

1)War For The Planet Of The Apes-9.5(2)Logan-9.5(3)Baby Driver-9.5(4)Wonder Woman-9(5)Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2-9(6)Spider-Man: Homecoming-8(7)John Wick 2-8(8)Split-8(9)Kong: Skull Island-7.5(10)Alien Covenant-7(11)Ghost In The Shell-7(12)POTC: Salazar's Revenge-7(13)Transformers: The Last Knight-4

^But my point is, why get him when there was barely any drama in the movie? The action scene's took precedent in the movie and this sometimes exposed Hood's inexperience with them, with an action director who can do drama, this movies production values would surely have been better.

__________________

2017 movie ratings out of 10:

1)War For The Planet Of The Apes-9.5(2)Logan-9.5(3)Baby Driver-9.5(4)Wonder Woman-9(5)Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2-9(6)Spider-Man: Homecoming-8(7)John Wick 2-8(8)Split-8(9)Kong: Skull Island-7.5(10)Alien Covenant-7(11)Ghost In The Shell-7(12)POTC: Salazar's Revenge-7(13)Transformers: The Last Knight-4

I think any future Wolverine film or X-Men film could use a director who has the storytelling vision of Singer and say the action mind of a Michael Bay or Peter Jackson.

But even so, I feel Singer handled the action in both films very well. It wasn't action for the sake of action. There was some story behind it and it meant something when the destruction happened. The Nightcrawler White House sequence, the Mansion invasion, Pyro attacking the officers from Bobby's house, Logan/Deathstrike fight, and Jean sacrificing herself for the team showed that Singer can handle action.

^Agreed, some of Singer's action scene's are astonishin in X2, add to that the plane sequence in SR and I really dont get people saying he cant do action.

Personally though, I hope they get Singer for X4, Wolverine 2 can be handled by someone else and still turn out to be okay.

__________________

2017 movie ratings out of 10:

1)War For The Planet Of The Apes-9.5(2)Logan-9.5(3)Baby Driver-9.5(4)Wonder Woman-9(5)Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2-9(6)Spider-Man: Homecoming-8(7)John Wick 2-8(8)Split-8(9)Kong: Skull Island-7.5(10)Alien Covenant-7(11)Ghost In The Shell-7(12)POTC: Salazar's Revenge-7(13)Transformers: The Last Knight-4

^I do place more blame on the studio, but really my question boils down to why did the studio allow a dramatic director to be hired if they werent going to give him a chance to do dramatic scene's?

__________________

2017 movie ratings out of 10:

1)War For The Planet Of The Apes-9.5(2)Logan-9.5(3)Baby Driver-9.5(4)Wonder Woman-9(5)Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2-9(6)Spider-Man: Homecoming-8(7)John Wick 2-8(8)Split-8(9)Kong: Skull Island-7.5(10)Alien Covenant-7(11)Ghost In The Shell-7(12)POTC: Salazar's Revenge-7(13)Transformers: The Last Knight-4

I think any future Wolverine film or X-Men film could use a director who has the storytelling vision of Singer and say the action mind of a Michael Bay or Peter Jackson.

But even so, I feel Singer handled the action in both films very well. It wasn't action for the sake of action. There was some story behind it and it meant something when the destruction happened. The Nightcrawler White House sequence, the Mansion invasion, Pyro attacking the officers from Bobby's house, Logan/Deathstrike fight, and Jean sacrificing herself for the team showed that Singer can handle action.

The bad things attributed to Fox, and although it pains me to say because he seems like such a cool guy, Jackman.

See I really don't have a problem with this film to be honest. I don't see these gaping plot holes people claim that are there (no one has pointed out the plot holes to me yet BTW). The CAMEO characters got enough development and characterization.

My complaints are the fact that Logan was not a animal, he was not a bad ass, as Jackman kept claiming he would be. In fact, Logan was a bit of a pussy to be fair. The REAL Logan from the comics would not just walk away once he found out he was tricked, he'd slaughter Stryker and everyone else in that lab, no questions.

And the Weapon X experiment scene was weak. He should of killed 20 guards whilst escaping, not two.

Neither of these things can be attributed to Hood. It's the execs and producers fault.

...I've said this before, and I know that I'm alone in this...but I would like to see Frank Miller take the helm of the sequel, since it is based on his work...

You'll never see blood and gore in a PG-13 movie. It wouldn't get the rating if it had blood and gore in it. And there's no way a comic book movie would get an adult rating, especially after Watchmen proved that comic book movies are generally perceived to be family/child-friendly films.

__________________Show me an X-Men comic where Mystique is the leader and walks round all day as a bored blonde

The bad things attributed to Fox, and although it pains me to say because he seems like such a cool guy, Jackman.

See I really don't have a problem with this film to be honest. I don't see these gaping plot holes people claim that are there (no one has pointed out the plot holes to me yet BTW). The CAMEO characters got enough development and characterization.

My complaints are the fact that Logan was not a animal, he was not a bad ass, as Jackman kept claiming he would be. In fact, Logan was a bit of a pussy to be fair. The REAL Logan from the comics would not just walk away once he found out he was tricked, he'd slaughter Stryker and everyone else in that lab, no questions.

And the Weapon X experiment scene was weak. He should of killed 20 guards whilst escaping, not two.

Neither of these things can be attributed to Hood. It's the execs and producers fault.

Good points. I largely agree. Wolverine seemed even more tame than in X3.

Hugh and the studio just want him to be a sex symbol, with all that cheesy stuff like strutting away from the exploding helicopter.

Also, no key theme was strongly explored or developed in this movie and, as such, I can see why it got a lower critical rating than X3. The Wolverine movie is not trying to say anything, it's not making any attempt to be relevant or thought-provoking.

There is more drama, more relevance and more depth in X-Men: The Last Stand.

__________________Show me an X-Men comic where Mystique is the leader and walks round all day as a bored blonde

If Logan was shown to be more of an animal then you could of had the thing about him trying to hold onto his humanity, not to go to the dark side as it were. Or a man fighting against his destiny, against his fate. That fate being a merciless killer like his brother. But we got none of that really because Wolverine himself was pretty one note throughout the whole movie. A lot of shouting and screw faces, but no actual real violence or aggression.

Maybe if he took part in the Team X slaughter of those villagers, but after getting back to base we see him torn apart by what he did, show the conflict beginning there it would of been more effective. Show him turning away from his killer side and wanting to be something else.

I think the guy who directed the first blade should do the next wolverine, and should have done the first imo. He brings character emotion, and a unique style of action, that would fit wolverine style action sequences.

I think the guy who directed the first blade should do the next wolverine, and should have done the first imo. He brings character emotion, and a unique style of action, that would fit wolverine style action sequences.

Hugh and the studio just want him to be a sex symbol, with all that cheesy stuff like strutting away from the exploding helicopter.

Which I seem to recall an entire ComicCon audience cheering wildly for.

I watched it last night (with one eye on the World Series and the other semi-watching the movie on my laptop)...my biggest problem with it is that it had absolutely no depth. Great start - loved the brothers thing, loved the Team X scenes, loved the scenes with the Hudsons...but the minute it looked like it was settling into a decent story they were on to the next thing. They didn't even properly explain why he was called Logan.

Wolverine always struggles with keeping the animal thing in check and not hurting innocents...but he loves killing bad guys and we needed more of that.

Like X3, the movie was too bloody short and wasn't given time to devote to a better story.

In everything I've read about Gavin Hood, Hugh wanted him after seeing his work in Tsotsi, which was an amazing character-driven film. I've loved some of the things he's said about the character, he seemed excited to do it, and I wish they'd just trusted him with the movie more.

__________________”We live in times when hate and fear seem stronger. We rise and fall, and light from dying embers: remembrances that hope and love last longer. And love is love is love is love is love is love is love cannot be killed or swept aside."

The Hudson scenes were missing one thing though, there needed to be a mutant connection to it. Whether it was that would turn out to hate mutants and try to kill Logan when they find out what he is, or just simply mentioning that their dead son was killed because he was different.

The Hudson scenes were missing one thing though, there needed to be a mutant connection to it. Whether it was that would turn out to hate mutants and try to kill Logan when they find out what he is, or just simply mentioning that their dead son was killed because he was different.

I don't think they needed a mutant connection. The point was that they brought him back to reality; they were the moral compass who reminded him that people have a choice.

But...there is a possible connection. I did think they provided a possible set-up for a future story as James Macdonald Hudson is the non-mutant head of Alpha Flight who took the names Weapon Alpha, Vindicator and Guardian. If he were made to be the Hudsons' son, the original owner of the bike and jacket, it would work in a future film that he could blame Wolverine for the death of his parents and want revenge. A story for the third film, after the Japanese sequel.

I don't think they needed a mutant connection. The point was that they brought him back to reality; they were the moral compass who reminded him that people have a choice.

But...there is a possible connection. I did think they provided a possible set-up for a future story as James Macdonald Hudson is the non-mutant head of Alpha Flight who took the names Weapon Alpha, Vindicator and Guardian. If he were made to be the Hudsons' son, the original owner of the bike and jacket, it would work in a future film that he could blame Wolverine for the death of his parents and want revenge. A story for the third film, after the Japanese sequel.

Yeah, I agree, dont think they needed a mutant connection at all, they served their purpose of showing there are good people in the world and that Logan has a choice about the type of the person he wants to be.

The only problem was there was no drama beforehand about the type of person Logan wants to be, well, not no drama, as Logan looking at a father with his son while also watching Kayla seemed to suggest he wanted to become a family man, but we got barely anything after that.

__________________

2017 movie ratings out of 10:

1)War For The Planet Of The Apes-9.5(2)Logan-9.5(3)Baby Driver-9.5(4)Wonder Woman-9(5)Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol.2-9(6)Spider-Man: Homecoming-8(7)John Wick 2-8(8)Split-8(9)Kong: Skull Island-7.5(10)Alien Covenant-7(11)Ghost In The Shell-7(12)POTC: Salazar's Revenge-7(13)Transformers: The Last Knight-4